Growing income gap is threatening a 'classless' U.S.

Don Wycliff's Tribune column today brings out the income gap that Alan Greenspan testified about this summer. As the gap grows between the wealthy and the poor, and higher education gets more expensive, it is becoming more difficult for the children of the poor to move up into a higher economic class. This is a bad development for the U.S., as one of our greatest attributes has been our lack of strong class system where the working class and the upper class stayed separate over generations.

The main difference between Bush and Kerry on this topic is whether to tax the wealthiest Americans (earning more than $250,000 annually) at 39.6% or at 35%. And also whether to tax America's wealthiest heirs with an estate tax.

Bush doesn't want to, with the consequence of a greater income gap and a stronger class system. Kerry wants to, with the consequence of a smaller income gap and a weaker class system. Not by much, but a little.

(That ought to be our main message to any undecided or "Gee, I like Bush and Kerry seems like such a boring snob" voter -- if you make less than $250K, then a vote for Bush means a poorer four more years for you personally.)

I also think that we Illinoisians (Illini?) should recognize our role in creating an income gap with our state tax. Our 3% income tax is low, and what's worse, we start taxing people at $2,000 of income. That means the minimum wage workers without benefits who can't afford college are paying income tax, which keeps people poorer.

The General Assembly should pass HB 7294, which would raise the income tax rate to 4% but more importantly, raise the standard exemption from $2,000 to $12,000 (no more taxing poverty wages!).

The wealthiest Illinoisians would pay an additional 1% of their income, while most Illinoisians would pay less in the state income tax. It's about a $2.4 billion shift in taxes, which would go a long way towards manufacturing a middle class in our state.

And the kicker: we'd get more money back from the federal government (about an additional $800 million every year), since state income tax paid by higher-income people is deductible off their federal returns, meaning the feds subsidize those state taxes paid. Wealthy people pay about a third of their income in federal taxes, so about a third of the $2.4 billion would be 'picked up' by the federal government, which is the equivalent of an $800 million project in Illinois. Every year.

Let's hope we can convince more representatives than Will Davis and Willie Delgado to co-sponsor the bill. And thanks to those two legislators!

Paul Begala with a great line on Bush and presidential debates

Paul Begala said something like this:

"George Bush has benefited from the soft bigotry of low expectations about his debating skills for years."

That's a nice riff off the Bush 2000 campaign's best line (really poignant). It's also true as applied to Bush as a debater. He's such a likable guy, and thanks to the Bush camp's ruthless negotiating, Kerry won't have the chance to ask Bush anything directly. (Isn't that amazing? In the most powerful county on earth, the two major candidates for president won't have a chance to have a one-to-one conversation in front of the electorate, because the incumbent won't do it.) I hope Kerry can make a good impression.

Future of the World Bank

I heard a good segment on NPR on the World Bank. Fresh Air interviewed a biographer of James Wolfensohn, current President of the World Bank. The bottom line, as framed by the biographer was this:

Shall the World Bank serve as the Secretariat to the Northern nations' agenda for the developing world (the protection of the environment and indigineous peoples), or shall it be a service organization for the developing world that wants to treat the environment and native people the same way the now-wealthy northern nations did (that is, with total disregard for either)?

Asian ping-pong in the Matrix

Oops. My link disappeared.

I'll try to find this again. It's one of those amazing game shows in Japan or Korea where two people are playing ping-pong as if they are in the Matrix because a bunch of their friends are completely hooded in black clothing lifting them up in front of a black curtain. It looks like a computer trick. Erik: send me the link again!

UPDATE: Here it is. Thanks, Erik.

American Candidate shows need for instant runoff voting with 3-person race

American Candidate is on tonight on Showtime, and anyone in the U.S. is eligibile to vote for either Lisa Witter, a progressive Democrat, Park Gillespie, a conservative Republican, or Malia Lazu, a progressive independent. I'm supporting Malia (on the board of the Center for Voting and Democracy), but this really shows the need for a smarter electoral system.

Lisa is backed by most of the large, national progressive organizations (MoveOn.org, Campaign for American's Future and other clients of Fenton Communications that is the largest public interest PR firm in the country.

The fear is that progressives will split the vote between Malia and Lisa, allowing the conservative Park to get a pass into the final round. There are echoes of the presidential campaign, which the Witter allies are bringing up.

If we used instant runoff voting, we wouldn't have this problem.

Although it doesn't really apply in this case, upon further reflection, since the show is essentially holding a runoff between the top two vote getters in the season finale, and only the last place finisher will get eliminated tonight.

If only we held a runoff election for president in any state where no candidate earned a majority of the vote.

Anyway, the episode is on tonight. Check it out if you can.

Help a progressive on reality TV -- vote Malia Lazu on American Candidate

This Sunday on Showtime, you'll apparently have a chance to vote for the winner of American Candidate. Malia Lazu is one of the three candidates, and she's a real progressive. If you can watch the show, vote for her on Sunday.

The show's website is here.

If America were Iraq, what would it be like? By Juan Cole

This piece by Michigan historian Juan Cole is insightful.

Here's how it starts. It's worth reading.

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

(skip)

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

Yeah, go and read it. It's here.

Safety more than metal detectors -- a review of mental health is in order

I'm not sure if this is relevant to what happened to turn Derek Potts into a murderer, but the role of anti-depressants and other mood-altering medications is the subject of this story in the UK's Guardian.

According to the paper, after a man on Paxil for two days shot his wife, daughter and baby granddaughter before killing himself, a US jury found the maker of Paxil (GlaxoSmithKline) liable for $8 million in damages which the corporation had to pay to the surviving family members.

At the bond hearing, the Sangamon County State's Attorney suggested that he heard from Mr. Potts' mother that Mr. Potts was not taking his medicine that treated his bipolar disorder.

We ought to look at whether these chemicals that are designed to alter our minds might have some bad side effects, such as the charge from the doctor in North Wales who said that antidepressant drugs can make people homicidal in the Guardian article.

On a more mundane matter, maybe we should have better social services so if someone gets depressed, they can receive counseling from the government and then take their medication (assuming there aren't any chilling side effects detailed in the Guardian article). That might make us all safer than metal detectors.

Fines, not prison, for pot possession in Chicago

Drug laws might be getting saner in Chicago. After Sergant Tom Donegan wrote a letter calling for fines instead of a misdemeanor arrest for possession of pot, the media and Mayor Daley picked it up and embraced the issue.

Pot ought to be as legal as liquor or nicotine. (And I'd rather have someone using marijuana than drinking on a regular basis). There's no such thing as 'high-driving' like there is drunk driving. Pot doesn't spark domestic violence or bar fights.

This Sun-Times article has a good run-down on the debate. I'm pleasantly surprised that Mayor Daley is open to the concept. I think he's getting more and more progressive.

Metal detectors or restricted access? How about fewer guns instead

The senseless murder of William Wozniak, an Illinois Capitol guard, should not lead to metal detectors or restricted public access to the Capitol. The alleged murderer, Derek Potts, walked up to the entrance with a shotgun or a rifle and shot Wozniak at point-blank range. From early reports, no change in the public access of the People's House would have prevented Mr. Wozniak's death.

What might have prevented his death would be reasonable restrictions on owning guns. Why we permit anyone to go and buy a shotgun is beyond me. My view of the Second Amendment is that our ability to form militias -- well-armed militias at that -- shall never be restricted by the government.

The more we seal off our own government from the public, the less invested and engaged the public feels. There's something so nice and humbling about a late session day when tons of school children crowd the Capitol and mix with citizens of all stripes looking to improve our laws while the lawmakers navigate their way through the throng. It feels like accessible democracy. We shouldn't sacrifice that spirit.

Armed guards put a palpable chill on our civic culture. They intimidate citizens into feeling like we simply follow the orders of authority. We need more citizens and fewer followers, especially around the Capitol.